While there are a lot of young guys who are in shape and have swings built by video, and therefore look perfect, that doesn't necessarily mean the competition is tougher these days than it was in Jack's day.

I'd say there are a lot more good golfers these days than in Jacks day. A lot more people play golf now than 40 years ago.

Fowler has now finished the last 2 majors in 2nd place. He's definitely got the game to win majors, and he has excellent mental toughness and focus. He'll get a few by the end of his career I'm almost certain of that.

I think it's just outright silly to say Bubba can only be a threat at the Masters. The man has got big time game.

I'm hoping lefty can bag that US Open next year and get his 6th major and his career grand slam. I think with his 5 majors and 40+ tour wins he's a top 10 all time golfer but another major, especially a US Open, would absolutely lock him into a top 10 golfer of all time.

I'm hoping lefty can bag that US Open next year and get his 6th major and his career grand slam. I think with his 5 majors and 40+ tour wins he's a top 10 all time golfer but another major, especially a US Open, would absolutely lock him into a top 10 golfer of all time.

That's exactly what I said. There are many more good golfers today, I don't think there are as many great ones.

I could agree with that. During Jack's years, he had to battle some major big names in golf, HOF'ers with a ton of majors themselves. If a person hasn't won at least 3 majors it's not even worth mentioning their name. As you can see, Jack's had to battle against several of the most elite golfers of all time.

Tiger's career of course is not finished and thus players around him winning majors not finished either so that story is incomplete. But Tiger really has only had to deal with Phil, Ernie, Singh and now Rory. But one can always argue the case, that Phil, Ernie and Singh could have had more majors, especially Phil (coming in 2nd place at majors he hasn't won like 8 times or something like that) if the all around depth of talent wasn't so good. I think during Tiger's years, there have been more 1 and 2 major winners then during Jack's years.

So you could argue both ways but looking at the legends that Jack had to battle for all those years, I'd have to lean towards that Jack played against better elite players even though the depth of the field after those elite players wasn't nearly as good as it is today and during Tiger's years.

I think it's just outright silly to say Bubba can only be a threat at the Masters. The man has got big time

While he does game his game doesn't fit the US OPEN style courses at all. I could see him competing at St Andrews but that is about it for the British Open. Bubba accurate tee shots and rough just don't mix.

Phil has almost no shot of winning a US Open. It's a 33 year-olds tourney. Is it possible? Sure. It's just not probable.

He just came in 2nd place again last year, lost by what, a stroke or 2, and then turns right around and wins the British Open. How in the hell do you come away with almost no shot mentality after knowing that. He's placed 2nd at a US Open like 6 or 7 times. To say he doesn't have what it takes to win is an ignorant statement at best. You have to remember one thing. The guys at 42, 44 and so, are not the same as the guys who were that same age like 20 years ago. Many of these guys still hit it just as long as the younger guys, and many of them, like Phil, have just as good if not better short games, plus they have the course knowledge. I think we're in an era where you'll still see guys in their 40's competing very well in majors. Clarke just won the British Open 2 years ago and he was in his mid 40's. There are quite a few men in their 40's that are a lagit threat every major (Mickelson, Furyk, McDowell, Sticker, Westwood).

He just came in 2nd place again last year, lost by what, a stroke or 2, and then turns right around and wins the British Open. How in the hell do you come away with almost no shot mentality after knowing that. He's placed 2nd at a US Open like 6 or 7 times. To say he doesn't have what it takes to win is an ignorant statement at best. You have to remember one thing. The guys at 42, 44 and so, are not the same as the guys who were that same age like 20 years ago. Many of these guys still hit it just as long as the younger guys, and many of them, like Phil, have just as good if not better short games, plus they have the course knowledge. I think we're in an era where you'll still see guys in their 40's competing very well in majors. Clarke just won the British Open 2 years ago and he was in his mid 40's. There are quite a few men in their 40's that are a lagit threat every major (Mickelson, Furyk, McDowell, Sticker, Westwood).

The Open is not the same tournament. It's not even close to being set up the same. PHil could win another Open and he could win another Masters. Same with Tiger. Neither will win a future US Open.

The Open is not the same tournament. It's not even close to being set up the same. PHil could win another Open and he could win another Masters. Same with Tiger. Neither will win a future US Open.

My point is, you could have said that 2 years ago and then you would have been sweating bullets as Phil damn near landed that elusive US Open once again, coming in 2nd place. And as you know, the 2015 US Open is going to be NOTHING like most other US Open's before it. Chambers Bay is a straight up LINKS course fashioned to the likes of what you would see in the British Open.

I just don't see how it's even possible to say there's NO way that Phil could win a US Open when he's placed 2nd 7 different times. I mean a putt here and a putt there and you're talking about a guy who easily could have won 7 US Opens in addition to his 3 Masters, 1 Open and 1 PGA. He's definitely got the GAME to compete in and win a US Open. If his game was so indifferent to winning a US Open, how in the hell could he come in 2nd place 7 times. You would figure he would not even sniff top 20's if that were the case.